Replies

"We are on a thread WHICH IS ABOUT a fossil monotreme having ear bones not only less than modern, but less modern than those on a different mammal fossil 80 million years older." - VadeRetro post 299

"The fossil monotremes tend to be described as more generalized as you go back in time." -VadeRetro post 302

"Someone may have called the platypus "degenerate," but all it means is that is has acquired too many cute specializations." -VadeRetro post 302

If you want to call loss of teeth a "cute specialization" instead of a generalization, ok. To me, it's just another case of loss of functionality, that evolutionists insist are examples of added functionality.

And it looks to me that it's your talking points that are in disarray. That and the false talking points you keep wanting to ascribe to Creationists, like significant differences aren't suppose to occur. Degenerative differences and speciation within original genetic potential are part of creationist theory.

I notice you don't have any comments on the fact that evolutionists were wrong about marsupials developing in isolation in austrailia. All that ridicule that Creationist's have endured from evolutionists on how did the marsupials get to Austrailia and only Austrailia, as if that proved anything, just flew back in your faces.

You don't lose 'em unless you don't use 'em. Ducks don't have teeth either.

Degenerative differences and speciation within original genetic potential are part of creationist theory.

You have nobody to answer the usual questions from the above bit of sophistry.

What changes are "degenerative?" The fossil record shows us evolving from bacteria. Humans don't appear until the day before yesterday on Earth's timeline. What's degenerative about that?
"Original genetic potential?" What were the original "created kinds?" Are lions and tigers separate or microevolved? Bears and hyenas? Horses and donkeys? Pythons and cobras? Deer and elk? Deer and caribou? Deer and pronghorn? Deer and goats? Deer and sheep? Deer and pigs? Deer and hippos? Deer and whales? What are the predictions of IY, Ignorant Yahooism?
What o what prevents microevolution, that operation of variation and natural selection "within kind," from straying "out of kind?" Let's say you're a species that has diverged a bit from the rest of its "kind." It is the outlier, the most different of its "kind." If selection pressures are driving it farther from the rest of its "kind," can it continue to diverge? How long? Does something stop it? What? What happens? You need a story, not a mantra.

I notice you don't have any comments on the fact that evolutionists were wrong about marsupials developing in isolation in austrailia.

Even some boys in TN know that there are possums in North America. Get a clue, son. Marsupials were well established (more or less unchallenged by placentals) on Gondwanaland. They were on all the pieces when it broke up. They reached North America from South America later, after they came into contact.

I don't have time tonight to put you through High School.

All that ridicule that Creationist's have endured from evolutionists on how did the marsupials get to Austrailia and only Austrailia, as if that proved anything, just flew back in your faces.

There are no native marsupials in Eurasia. (They may have originated there, but that's another story. There haven't been any native to there for a long, long time.) Not oppossums. Certainly not those eucalyptus-only-please koalas of Australia and only Australia. So, are all marsupials one created kind? The thylacine and the possum and the koala and the kangaroo and the wombat?

You still have a problem with a koalas (and quite a number of other uniquely located species) until you actually address it. Mt. Ararat is a long way from marsupial country. It certainly isn't in South America or even North America.